On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 11:36:50PM +0100, derek holzer wrote:
> This might be an interesting starting point:
>http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0001-37652004000200040&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en> Chris is correct that the sound acquisition equipment must be able to
> register the ultrasonic frequencies before the A/D converter can do much
> about it. I would assume that any Linux audio software capable of
> recording at 96 KHz, along with a 96 KHz sound card [the model mentioned
> in the above article records at 16 bit, BTW] would work just fine with
> an ultrasonic receiver.
> I would recommend posting to the Phonography list [it's a Yahoo group,
> unfortunately], as this is a bunch of folks dedicated to
> nature/field/environmental sound recording.
> Chris Cannam wrote:
> >On Monday 08 Nov 2004 20:17, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> >>I just had a crazy idea ... Sorry if this is off topic a bit. Does
> >>anyone know what frequency ranges bats use? Would a 96KHz 24bit card be
> >>able to capture anything useful from their sounds?
> >Depends on the bats, but generally yes. Some of them are on the edge of
> >the human hearing range (I used to be able to hear the bats at my parents'
> >house, although my hearing is no longer quite good enough).
> >First Google hit for "frequency range of bats" is a bit less optimistic
> >than I am:
> > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/JuanCancel.shtml> >Either way, wouldn't the microphone be more of a limiting factor than the
> >soundcard?
Great. Thanks to all for the pointers. -edrz